Congratulations DCP

[_Scottie]

Nice dodge. I'll ask again: What are the comparable LDS stereotypes? You have claimed on this thread that the term "Morgbot" is every bit as offensive as anti-Semitic slurs. You have any evidence, or are you just blowing smoke?

First, I never said it was as offensive as the K-word. What I tried to get across, which was apparently lost on you, who are we to say what is more offensive to one person than another? How can I have evidence for that? You're just being ridiculous now.
However, since you've now changed the goalposts and dropped the "equally offensive as anti-semitic stereotypes" qualifier, I'll throw out a few...

Jello-eaters
"When the leaders speak, the thinking has been done"...a.k.a., mindless drones
Prozac poppers
Kool-aid drinkers
Bishops are often stereotyped as dirty old men that sit behind the desk whacking off as teenage girls detail their sexual acts
Mindlessly giving tithing to the church while they don't pay their debts, thus leading the country in bankruptcy
Ignoring family to spend the majority of their lives fulfilling callings
All the men in the church hold unrighteous dominion over their wives
should I go on???

The two things are not the same, Scottie. Another problem with what you're saying is that these supposed "stereotypes" are more or less limited to the ex-Mormon community, whereas Jewish stereotypes are much more widely known, and therefore more pernicious and dangerous.

I agree with you here.

Then what is your point? Best to throw in the towel, methinks.

Ok, I thought I already had conceded this point. But, just to appease your ego, I'll "throw in the towel". Jewish stereotypes and slurs are much more apt to start an incident than Mormon stereotypes and slurs. Do you feel better now?

Mel Gibson is a public figure and very famous and seen as a kind of role model. Due to his fame, his remarks carry more weight. Likewise with Michael Richards. On the other hand, some no-name street preacher is far less likely to reach or affect the same size of audience as Gibson. And Gibson did not pay "DEARLY." He was shamed and had to attend either AA or anger management. That's it. Big deal. I assume you'd have no problem with assigning anger management classes to the nutcase preaches standing outside Temple Square, right? Or would that be making them "pay DEARLY"?

Ummm...yes, it WAS a big deal. It was a big deal for a long time. He DID pay dearly. What? Would he need to be whipped with stripes in order for YOU to consider it paying dearly??

It was, relatively speaking, a slap on the wrist. He ought to have known better, and his punishment, in my view, was just. I can't help but wonder why you sympathize with him. Do you use a lot of racial and ethnic slurs yourself, which thus renders you afraid of having to endure consequences similar to Gibson's?

Of course he should have known better. And I don't sympathise with him.

In your view, what would have made his consequences more than a slap on the wrist? Some jail time? Being blacklisted from Hollywood? What?

As for the street preachers, ANY form of accountability would be fine with me. But, no, there is absolutely nothing.

That's not true. Some of them have been arrested; some of them have been beaten bloody by angry Mormons.

CFR. I've never heard of anything like this.

No negative consequences at all. If this same no-name street preacher were to protest the same way and defile Jewish items in a large Jewish gathering, I'd be willing to bet my right ass cheek that he'd have some 'splainin to do to somebody.

More and more it just seems that you are naïve on this whole issue.

Great retort there. I succumb to your superior intellect on this issue. [rolls eyes]

No, it actually just demonstrates what a hypocrite Bill Hamblin is. Bottom line: the term "morgbot" is nowhere near as offensive as the "K-word."

Maybe not to you. How can you gauge just how offensive it might be to someone? Even if it's not "as offensive", does that make it ok to say it?

I still fail to see how this makes Bill a hypocrite??

It makes him a hypocrite because he behaved in an extraordinarily offensive manner. I'll ask again: do you think he would have felt comfortable posting the same long diatribe on a Jewish board?

I would think so. I can't imagine a Jew taking offense to someone trying to point out how insulting stereotypes and slurs are hurtful no matter what group you belong to, by using your particular hurtful stereotypes and slurs to prove the point. His point was that if someone were to compose the post against the Jews the way he did, it would be abhorrently offensive. Why would that upset a Jew? If I were a Jew, I would be saying, "Yeah! See how hurtful that might be if someone were REALLY saying that, which Bill wasn't."

[_The Nehor]

To save time I'm with Scottie on this one. He was using the offensive nature of what he was saying to show how offensive it was that others were doing something similar to him.

In other words: "two wrongs make a right"? Come on, Nehor. You are better than this. Hamblin did wrong.

It is obvious in context that he in fact does NOT believe what he is saying or the analogy would by default mean he thinks Mormons deserve it. Whether you think the analogy good or flawed accusing him of Anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

The extensive nature of the comments make me seriously wonder what he believes. (Certainly he seems very, very familiar---disturbingly familiar, even---with all of these nasty slurs and stereotypes.) Using your logic, one could quite easily make a case that Michael Richards' outburst was merely an instance of him trying to engage in social commentary. (I.e., "In context, it's clear he doesn't really think that! He was just trying to make a point about how bothersome certain words were!")

Bill Hamblin did wrong, and he deserves to be held accountable for it.

He did no wrong. It's not "two wrongs making a right". It's comparison. He was taking a bigoted rant and showing that what some said was not a bigoted rant was in fact much like any other bigoted rant. Michael Richards didn't clearly state before he began what he was talking about. I sent the text in question to a Jewish friend (who spends free time fighting anti-Semitism) and asked him with no other commentary if this statement offended him and if he thought the writer was an anti-Semite. His response was that it did not offend him at all.

[_Some Schmo]

It's a question of redundancy. Did he really have to go on and on with examples to illustrate his point?

And the fact that he used Jewish specific examples rather than doing what he said he'd do in his set-up (replace morgbot with kike) casts suspicion on his example, in my opinion. I mean, there are two options here: he's a dumbass who sucks at making examples, or he's an anti-Semite. Take your pick.

[_Scottie]

It's a question of redundancy. Did he really have to go on and on with examples to illustrate his point?

And the fact that he used Jewish specific examples rather than doing what he said he'd do in his set-up (replace morgbot with kike) casts suspicion on his example, in my opinion. I mean, there are two options here: he's a dumbass who sucks at making examples, or he's an anti-Semite. Take your pick.

Just because you're educated on what anti-semitic stereotypes are doesn't mean you support or agree with them. And writing down your knowledge of them, even in a pretend letter, does not mean you support or agree with them.

So, where exactly would you have stopped the letter?

[_Some Schmo]

Just because you're educated on what anti-semitic stereotypes are doesn't mean you support or agree with them. And writing down your knowledge of them, even in a pretend letter, does not mean you support or agree with them.

So, where exactly would you have stopped the letter?

Well, I think a single example would have sufficed. I also think it would have been more effective to have done what he said he was doing, which was to take a direct exmo quote and replace "morgbot" with "kike."

There's a difference between having knowledge of something and reveling in it.

[_Scottie]

Just because you're educated on what anti-semitic stereotypes are doesn't mean you support or agree with them. And writing down your knowledge of them, even in a pretend letter, does not mean you support or agree with them.

So, where exactly would you have stopped the letter?

Well, I think a single example would have sufficed. I also think it would have been more effective to have done what he said he was doing, which was to take a direct exmo quote and replace "morgbot" with "kike."

There's a difference between having knowledge of something and reveling in it.

Perhaps. It's hard to say. I thought the example was very effective and truly showed just how ignorant and hurtful it can be for anti's to use such insensitive stereotypes and slurs. You didn't. Cest la vie.

[_Some Schmo]

I thought the example was very effective and truly showed just how ignorant and hurtful it can be for anti's to use such insensitive stereotypes and slurs. You didn't. Cest la vie.

You're right; I didn't. I was far too distracted by his insensitive remarks toward the Jews.